Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

No www

7 replies [Last post]
Gustavo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-11

Hello.

I think this is something we should take into account for our future projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-www

What do you think?

Cheers.

free-zombie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-08
On http://no-www.org/ , the

On http://no-www.org/ , the sentence «In fact, several websites choose to forward traffic from domain.com to www.domain.com for branding reasons and that's just fine with us» disagrees with the table on the wikipedia page (which is equivalent in content, though more extensive, to the FAQ on no-www.org). If they mean the strict interpretation of wikipedia, they're labelling setups with a seperate www host as bad — not justifyable IMHO. Also, «Class C» conformance is a serious impediment to usability, seeing as many have learnt to expect and type www. everywhere.

In other news, this has nothing to do with GNU/Linux, which is, you'll have to admit, most of the name of "GNU/Linux Matters".

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Well I definitely agree

Well I definitely agree with the idea and it has in fact been a long held practice now for me to redirect domain.com to www.domain.com so whichever you type it will lead you to the right place, but it will always be www.domain.com. I could have made both domains valid, but that leads to duplication concerns for search engines, which is why we have to only pick one of the two and redirect the other to the main one.

Why did I picked www version? Well, although this isn't much of a reason, it just feels more complete and is something I used to and I think most people are used to as well. And as long as people can access it either way, it's really not a big deal.

Cheers

Edit: Looking at those classes, all of Libervis sites are in Class A. Smiling
Edit2: Actually no, looking at wikipedia I think these guys got stuff confused. Now I don't care anymore. Why would it not be acceptable to redirect domain.com to www.domain.com? Whatever guys! As long as you can get to the site using either, who cares.

Gustavo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-11
Hi! Indeed, it has nothing

Hi!

Indeed, it has nothing to do with Linux. It's a little thing that worths taking into account.

Simplifying our URLs would come in handy, IMO.

Cheers!

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
I agree.I just don't

I agree.

I just don't necessarily agree with disqualification of redirecting domain.com to www.domain.com making the latter official. As long as both are accessible I think it should be fine. Changing a site that's been set to one could be risky business for the achieved search engine ranks and I'm thinking that it just isn't worth it. We are, as far as I'm concerned, already fine as it is. I think GGL is too, you also redirect domain.com to www.domain.com.

Gustavo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-11
I agree; that's why I think

I agree; that's why I think we should take it into account for our future projects.

For example, Undeclared Right would only be accessible from http://undeclaredright.info/ and http://www.undeclaredright.info/ would redirect to http://undeclaredright.info/

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Well, for new projects,

Well, for new projects, that sounds like a good strategy.

ariadacapo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-13
I must say I completely

I must say I completely lost the point of the thing, but if everybody agrees on this well why not ;-)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.